1968 (4) TMI 5 - HC - Income Tax

Income from the shares - taxability - relavant year - dividend declared in its annual general meeting held on Sept. 2 1952. The dividend warrants were actually received by the assessee on Jan. 12 1953 - held that disputed dividend is taxable in the A.Y. 1953-54

Summary

Issues:
1. Taxability of disputed dividend in assessment year 1953-54.
2. Interpretation of provisions of section 13 and section 16(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis:

The judgment by the High Court of PUNJAB AND HARYANA addresses the taxability of a disputed dividend received by the Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. as holder of shares of another company. The dispute arose as the dividend income was received in January 1953, but declared in September 1952. The Income-tax Officer held that the income became taxable in the assessment year 1953-54. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, leading to the reference to the High Court.

Regarding the first issue, the court analyzed the provisions of section 16(2) of the Act, which deems dividend income to be of the previous year in which it is paid, credited, or distributed. The court emphasized that the deeming clauses prevent manipulation of income by deferring receipt. Referring to precedents, the court noted that the date of payment must be between declaration and actual realization, emphasizing availability to the recipient. Despite conflicting precedents, the court affirmed that the dividend income was taxable in the assessment year 1953-54, as it was made available to the assessee before 1954.

On the second issue, the court discussed the interaction between section 13 and section 16(2) of the Act. Section 13 allows computation of income based on the accounting method employed by the assessee, while section 16(2) governs the taxability of dividends. The court clarified that section 13 does not control section 16(2), emphasizing that tax on dividend is payable as per the latter provision. The court rejected the argument that the department's acceptance of previous returns sanctified the assessee's practice of showing dividend income in a different assessment year.

The court declined to entertain arguments regarding the validity of the notice under section 34 and the alleged double taxation of the dividend income. Ultimately, the court answered both questions in the affirmative, against the assessee, with no order as to costs. The Chief Justice concurred with the judgment.